…Fight club.
The plan is for an online History debate between Mr Kydd’s set and Mrs Canning’s set. It will be done through posting comments to this post. Judging will be by Ms Vignali’s set.
The aim is to get you really thinking about how to construct analytical and powerful arguments in as few words as possible.
The rules.
Obviously the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule is also that you do not talk about fight club. However the third rule is that each school will get two posts of no more than 200 words. Credit will be given for the power of your arguments and evidence deployed (you should aim to interact with it where it is appropriate).
The timeline will be as follows.
The week starting the 30th September – My set have a week to make their first post in favour of the motion.
The week starting the 7th October – Mrs Canning’s set have a week to put their first post against the motion.
The week starting the 14th October – both sets have a week to post a rebuttal of the other school’s argument.
The week starting 21st October – Judging to take place. Ms Vignali’s set will focus on the power of the argument (not which idea they agree with more).
Enjoy…
Mr Kydd
DEBATE TITLE
To what extent is it correct to suggest that Alexander II deserves his reputation as the Tsar Liberator ?
Clearly, Count Tolstoy was correct when he described Alexander II as “the Tsar Liberator”. Most importantly, this little father was responsible for the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. This ended the inhumane system of serfdom, characterised by the knout, Siberian exile and the commodification of people. It also gave nine tenths of Russia choice over who they married, the right to own private property and the freedom of movement for the first time.
Moreover, the Tsar protected and extended these rights with his lateral reforms. Significantly, the legal system was progressively changed, with the introduction of trial by jury. In addition, conscription was reduced to only six active years of service with selection by ballot under Mylutin’s 1871 reforms. Given the reputation of the pre-emancipation army for brutality this was perhaps the most popular of the reforms with the peasants themselves.
Furthermore, Alexander gave his subjects the instruments of political opposition. For instance, he created the zemstvos (1864) and dumas (1870), which gave a voice for liberals and reformers. He relaxed censorship and at the end of his life, he was even considering Loris-Melekov’s constitutional reforms.
Alexander was surely the Tsar Liberator, for it was he who began to change Russia from a state of Hobbesian medievalism to Western liberalism. Westwood was thus accurate when he wrote that “no other ruler did so much to reduce the suffering of the Russian people”.
Mrs Canning’s group opening remarks
Both Alexander’s motives and the outcome of the Emancipation Edict strongly support the view that Alexander II was not the ‘Tsar Liberator’. Alexander II’s motives for the emancipation of the serfs were not the selfless and generous ones that some would argue. Russia was faced with a crippled economy and the restrictions placed on the workforce through serfdom can be seen as the reason for this; the country desperately needed a new railway system to repair the economy. But this was pointless when 90% of the population where unable to move freely. This motive for the Emancipation Edict was purely to improve Russia’s economic situation, not to help the serfs themselves.
In 1859 there were 2,000 peasant revolts, killing thousands of landowners, this could not be allowed to continue and Alexander II saw emancipating the serfs as the best way to end this. Alexander II was not a popular Tsar; indeed he was viewed as “ineffective liberal and an inefficient autocrat”. He had lot of opposition, and was assassinated by the political terrorist group, the Peoples Will. Alexander had recognised the level of opposition and introduced the Emancipation Edict in order to appease the peasants before he faced revolution from below. This again does not show him as a liberator, but actually an autocrat doing what he can to maintain his personal power. This is proved by Alexander’s own statement due to the revolts after the emancipation; ‘There will be no emancipation except the one I have given you. Obey the laws and statutes! Work and toil! Obey the authorities and the landowners.’ He clearly felt he had done as much as he was going to do, despite this not being enough to satisfy the peasants.
After the act was passed the situation for the peasants was often worse, not better. Once freed the Serfs where stripped of their houses and communal land. Not only that but they often found themselves with over 20% less land then they had when they where serfs. This coupled with the redemption payments, costing more that the land was worth. The strengthening of the power of the Mir and the introduction of land captains simply transferred the control over the peasantry from one body to another; and the claim that the peasants were liberated through access to fair courts is simplistic as peasants still had separate courts .The masses were mot liberated; they were actually as restricted as they ever were, if not more. Therefore it is not convincing to argue that Alexander II was the ‘tsar liberator’.
You’re late with this, Sir. It’s inherently selfish.